Which is easier? For a very large group spread over a very large geographic area to change its language, or for a small population in a relatively small area to experience genetic drift and over time alter the relative frequencies of its y haplogroups?

... Genetic drift is something I find a great deal of fault in, related to the early papers that associated the Basques and the Irish and therefore non-IE and pre-Neolithic. Drift is just a code word for unexplained youthful most recent common ancestors.

An argument based on genetic drift is like saying one group just "got lucky." I do think there is a great deal of randomness to the extinction of paternal lineages, but it doesn't make sense that R1b lineages "got lucky" so much all over Western Europe. Something else was at work. Either migrations, indigenous plagues, a dominant cultures, or even some basic biological advantage.

Genetic drift can occur where the advantages that caused it are unknown. A recent paper (I can't remember its title or who wrote it), for example, suggested that men in y haplogroup R1b have greater sperm motility than those in y haplogroup I. I hope I am remembering that correctly.

It seems likely that y haplogroup G2a was once widespread throughout western Europe. It is much reduced now. Some kind of switch happened.

I don't think genetic drift can be dismissed as "an argument when you don't have an argument".

Indo-European languages got to western Europe and replaced the languages that were there before them. That happened somehow.

If the Basques were always predominantly R1b, and a language related to theirs was once spoken over a much wider area by other peoples who were predominantly R1b, then it doesn't seem likely that R1b was the y-dna vector for Indo-European in western Europe.

Besides, it seems to me those early papers explained away young haplogroup ages not so much by genetic drift as by the convenient "genetic bottleneck".

Undoubtedly bottlenecks have occurred, but that seems to me the real "argument when you don't have an argument".

Besides, it seems to me those early papers explained away young haplogroup ages not so much by genetic drift as by the convenient "genetic bottleneck".

Undoubtedly bottlenecks have occurred, but that seems to me the real "argument when you don't have an argument".

Actually that sounds a lot like what Anatole Klyosov has often done, when challenged about the finding of E-V13 7000 ybp Spain, he claimed that all modern day E-V13 bearers are descendants of a men who lived 2600 ybp, so the haplogroup went through a bottleneck.

This is what he originally claimed:

Quote

However, E-V13 is already out, since it was formed around 2600 ybp (Lutak and Klyosov, Proceedings, 2009, April, pp. 639-669).

I think they spoke a pre Indoeuropean language at some time, that could or could not be related to the group of languages in which were Aquitanian and Iberian and of which Basque is the last remnant. I think that IE reached Western Europe from Eastern Europe but it was a cultural trait expanded through Elite dominance and cultural assimilation. We will never know for sure since non written languages don´t leave behind archaeological remains. If R1b is found to be post-neolithic I will reconsider my position though, as there will be a clear sign of a massive replacement of populatioin. Still, even if that is the case, there is still the problem with Iberians and Aquitanians, do you think they were flooded with R1b IE speaking populations but still kept their non IE languages? And what about the Celts of Weswtern Iberia? they were the carriers of an IE language but those regions had a lower percentage of R1b in present day.

We can't look at these things in a vacuum. The top 15 areas of L11+ on the entire planet are all in the British Isles where all pre-Roman languages were IE. The areas of L11 in Ireland blow the doors off of Basque country L11 frequency, reaching more than 90%+ in some areas and over 73% in all areas. Besides, the level of L11 in Aquitanian/Iberian lands is not drastically different than in the NW or western Iberia.

Let´s see your alternative, if I understand correctlyIE R1b arrive to Western Europe in late Neolithic-Bronze age. They largely replace the previous population all over the place and their language, except for a region extending from the SE coast of Spain to the SW coast of France, where they replace people but not language. And for the following 2k years until Roman expansion things doesn´t change, do I understand this correctly?

I'm not attempting to answer for Rich Rocca, but it is true that thus far no ancient R1b remains have been found in Europe that predate the Bronze Age. Of course, that could change, since aDNA is pretty sparse right now.

If Basque represents that sole surviving vestige of the language spoken by the predominantly R1b population of most of western Europe, then how and why did the massive switch to Indo-European languages take place, and who was responsible for it?

There is no evidence that I know of for horse-riding, Pontic-Caspian-type "Aryans" (for lack of a better term) in western Europe, and little R1a. So how did it happen?

The question, it seems to me, is which is easier to believe: That a relatively small, somewhat isolated population (the Basques) could, via natural processes, alter the balance of its y haplogroups over time, or that a huge population, spread out over a wide area, in varying ecosystems, occupied by different cultures, once spoke a Basque-like language but all switched over to Indo-European?

I think they spoke a pre Indoeuropean language at some time, that could or could not be related to the group of languages in which were Aquitanian and Iberian and of which Basque is the last remnant. I think that IE reached Western Europe from Eastern Europe but it was a cultural trait expanded through Elite dominance and cultural assimilation. We will never know for sure since non written languages don´t leave behind archaeological remains. If R1b is found to be post-neolithic I will reconsider my position though, as there will be a clear sign of a massive replacement of populatioin. Still, even if that is the case, there is still the problem with Iberians and Aquitanians, do you think they were flooded with R1b IE speaking populations but still kept their non IE languages? And what about the Celts of Weswtern Iberia? they were the carriers of an IE language but those regions had a lower percentage of R1b in present day.

We can't look at these things in a vacuum. The top 15 areas of L11+ on the entire planet are all in the British Isles where all pre-Roman languages were IE. The areas of L11 in Ireland blow the doors off of Basque country L11 frequency, reaching more than 90%+ in some areas and over 73% in all areas. Besides, the level of L11 in Aquitanian/Iberian lands is not drastically different than in the NW or western Iberia.

Let´s see your alternative, if I understand correctlyIE R1b arrive to Western Europe in late Neolithic-Bronze age. They largely replace the previous population all over the place and their language, except for a region extending from the SE coast of Spain to the SW coast of France, where they replace people but not language. And for the following 2k years until Roman expansion things doesn´t change, do I understand this correctly?

No, I think the emigration to the Basque country was very gradual. Kind of like what we've seen in California, New Mexico and Texas over the past 50 years. Waves of immigrants from Mexico have brought back Native American Y-DNA to these areas. They've come seeking prosperity. The children of those immigrants speak English and their grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. Y-DNA replacement without language replacement.

The Basque Country had similar prosperity, especially due to the natural port of Bilbao. I have first hand knowledge as one of my great-grandparents was born in NE Burgos but lived in the Bilbao suburb of Barakaldo. He would grow his wheat in his Burgos farms and sell them for export in Basque country.